God's Publicist

The foundation started by Tennessee-born Sir John Templeton invests in unpopular big ideas like Science and Religion (and Humility, of course).

There's a story about a man who cleaned up a vacant lot and turned it into a beautiful garden.  A local churchman comes by one day while he is weeding and comments, "Brother, you and the Lord sure have a wonderful garden here."  He replies, "Yes, Parson, but you should have seen it last year when the Lord had it by Himself." 

In a similar vein, the billion-dollar John Templeton Foundation (EIN 62-1322826 Form 990) gives God and Religion a helping hand by promoting constructive dialog between science and religion and exploring other Big Ideas.  The foundation sees itself as a contrarian investor, putting philanthropic dollars into research on topics neglected by other philanthropists.  (Perhaps overlooking the considerable investment that organized faiths have made over the years in providing answers to these eternal perplexities.)  Twenty-seven Big Ideas are listed on the organization's web page as core themes for funding—things like Creativity, Forgiveness, Free Will, Wisdom, Purpose, Thrift, and Entrepreneurship. 

The foundation also sponsors the Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries About Spiritual Realities, a prize designed to exceed the Nobel Prize in monetary amount (if not in brand recognition).  The prize is administered by the Canyon Institute, a project of the small Christian-oriented Grand Canyon University (EIN 86-0977269 Form 990) in Phoenix.  (Small for a university at $40 million with 450 staff.)

The amount of money that the Templeton Foundation has to spend on its projects has given pause to science writers invited to participate (for pay) in forum events that seem overly slanted toward the religious view of the world (even though they may include token participation by prominent anti-religionists like Richard Dawkins). 

In a piece earlier this year in the Chronicle of Education, John Horgan, a science journalist, voiced his qualms about his participation in a fellowship program sponsored by Templeton at the University of Cambridge (several weeks with all expenses paid, plus $15,000).  Mr. Horgan took the money and expressed his doubts later in the relatively obscure Chronicle. 

I found Mr. Horgan's article quite fortuitously while waiting for jury duty—showing once again that coicidences are just God's way of remaining anonymous.

Part of the problem with the Templeton Foundation is the participation of the founder's son John Templeton Jr.  Listed on the Form 990 as President (with compensation of $120,000) the younger Templeton is also founder and chair of Let Freedom Ring, Inc. (EIN 06-1719990 Form 990), a 501(c)(4) organization that promotes conservative causes, such as an event called "Pastors at the Inauguration," encouraging direct involvement of religion in civic life.  (The Templeton Foundation also has an executive director, Charles Harper, with compensation of $473,000.) 

And now there is an anti-Templeton backlash among some scientists.  The New York Times (George Johnson) reports on a forum held earlier this month ("A Free-for-All on Science and Religion") at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies (EIN 95-2160097 Form 990) in La Jolla, California.  It was sponsored by The Science Network, a for-profit start-up video channel that wants to become the C-SPAN of science. 

The Templeton forums may well be have been the inspiriation for the recent Time magazine cover story and debate ("God vs. Science") between Mr. Dawkins and Francis Collins of the National Human Genome Research Institute.  But maybe not.  The Time article cites a number of recent books on the subject, including best sellers like The End of Faith by Sam Harris.  It may be that there is no real need for a foundation devoted to ongoing discussion of these topics. 

It seems to me that neither Science nor Religion are well served by these packaged debates and forums, which seem more like media events than serious scholarship.  The issue for a philanthropist is not just that a topic is neglected, it is also whether there is a possibility that massive investment could come up with new answers.  So while Bill and Melinda Gates have a shot at finding a solution for malaria, I don't see that the Templeton Foundation has the potential for any breakthrough in issues that have persisted since before Galileo. 

Comments

[Seven Star Hand]

Hello Underalms and all,

Here's my two bits on this intractable debate. Hope you and others can appreciate my efforts to provide a key to a true solution for humanity's seemingly never-ending cycle of struggle and despair.
http://www.geocities.com/sevenstarhand/twospirits.html

Analyzing the Creator Debate

Did you ever consider that atheism arose because certain people saw that religious characterizations about the nature of an omnipotent "God" were seriously flawed and then concluded that religion and the Creator were the same things? This is the exact same conclusion at the base of religious beliefs; namely that the Creator and religion are inseparable. Consequently, both atheists and religious followers are arguing over a flawed assumption without considering that other possibilities negate the common core conclusion of both groups. These arguments are actually over religion and whether it represents a reliable model of reality. The answer to this question is of course not. Religion is not only flawed, it is purposely deceptive! Though atheists are certainly sincere in their conclusions, the fact remains that they and religious followers are locked in a debate that cannot be won by either side because both base their positions upon whether the same flawed premise is the truth. In order for this debate to conclude with a truthful answer, a greater level of discernment is required.

One apt clarifying question is, if someone tells lies about you, does that negate you or make you a liar or a lie? Certainly, the image cast about you would be a false one, but that is their image, not the real you. Consequently, faulty religious assertions about the Creator of this universe do not negate the existence of a Creator. Considering the possibility that this universe is not by chance leaves the door open to how it arose, which leads us to seek what could have created and maintained it. Since neither religion nor science has yet adequately answered this question, it is safe to conclude that those who argue about the Creator based on either are most certainly wrong about one or more aspects. Therefore, another point of view and additional knowledge are required.

Read More...
http://sevenstarhand.blogspot.com/2006/11/analyzing-creator-debate.html

Peace...